It is supposed to have done what? Indicate the EU regulations do not currently require toxicity testing for products/ingredients which may be used in cosmetics? Wrong, the general statute does, even for cosmetics as it is not prohibited from said requirement. The testing cannot be required to have been performed solely for cosmetic use within the EU, but the general statute requires everything reasonably suspected of harm to be properly tested, which would include toxicity testing since it is by definition reasonably suspected and is not prohibited by any other regulation. This may change in some fashion in the future, but presently it is the law.

Prove it.

Sure ... but why should it be necessary if you know it all and I do not?

As already mentioned, for repeated-dose toxicity testing, currently no validated orgenerally accepted alternative method is available for replacing animal testing. Therehave been some serious efforts in the domains of e.g. neurotoxicity and nephrotoxicity,but to date, no method or screening battery has been formally (pre-)validated[SCCNFP/0546/02].

In the notification process of dangerous substances, repeated dose toxicity studies arerequired when the substance under consideration is produced or imported in amountsexceeding 1 tonne/year [92/32/EEC].

In the case of the development of cosmetic ingredients which have specific biologicalproperties and which will come into contact with human skin for a long period of time,the SCCP is convinced that evaluation of the systemic risk is a key element inevaluating the safety of these new ingredients, irrespective of the tonnage-linked andpossibly limited requirements imposed by the Dangerous Substances Directive[67/548/EEC].

Therefore the SCCP considers that in certain cases the use of animal long-termexperiments to study one or more potential toxic effects remains a scientific necessity.It is self-evident that animal use should be limited to a minimum, but never at theexpense of consumer safety. The "7th Amendment" [2003/15/EC] to the CosmeticDirective 76/768/EEC allows up to 11 March 2013 for the development of validatedalternative tests for repeated exposure.

It is supposed to have done what? Indicate the EU regulations do not currently require toxicity testing for products/ingredients which may be used in cosmetics? Wrong, the general statute does, even for cosmetics as it is not prohibited from said requirement. The testing cannot be required to have been performed solely for cosmetic use within the EU, but the general statute requires everything reasonably suspected of harm to be properly tested, which would include toxicity testing since it is by definition reasonably suspected and is not prohibited by any other regulation. This may change in some fashion in the future, but presently it is the law.

Prove it.

Sure ... but why should it be necessary if you know it all and I do not?

As already mentioned, for repeated-dose toxicity testing, currently no validated orgenerally accepted alternative method is available for replacing animal testing. Therehave been some serious efforts in the domains of e.g. neurotoxicity and nephrotoxicity,but to date, no method or screening battery has been formally (pre-)validated[SCCNFP/0546/02].

In the notification process of dangerous substances, repeated dose toxicity studies arerequired when the substance under consideration is produced or imported in amountsexceeding 1 tonne/year [92/32/EEC].

In the case of the development of cosmetic ingredients which have specific biologicalproperties and which will come into contact with human skin for a long period of time,the SCCP is convinced that evaluation of the systemic risk is a key element inevaluating the safety of these new ingredients, irrespective of the tonnage-linked andpossibly limited requirements imposed by the Dangerous Substances Directive[67/548/EEC].

Therefore the SCCP considers that in certain cases the use of animal long-termexperiments to study one or more potential toxic effects remains a scientific necessity.It is self-evident that animal use should be limited to a minimum, but never at theexpense of consumer safety. The "7th Amendment" [2003/15/EC] to the CosmeticDirective 76/768/EEC allows up to 11 March 2013 for the development of validatedalternative tests for repeated exposure.

tommee wrote:

Moved on since the sixth amendment

Like i have said, you are a fool.

The sixth amendment of 92/32/EEC? Since it is not part of the cosmetic requirements can you provide the reference to that 1 tonne requirement being changed perhaps? If not, I will understand that the assumptions are driving your views.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Ok this lists restricted substances, provisionally allowed substances, allowed preservatives, UV filters, and coloring agents. That leaves some 260,000 + known chemical compounds which could be used, but may require testing .... right?

List of substances which cosmetic products must not contain except subject to the restrictions and conditions laid down

List of substances provisionally allowed

List of colouring agents allowed for use in cosmetic products (1)

List of colouring agents provisionally allowed for use in cosmetic products

List of preservatives allowed

List of preservatives provisionally allowed

List of permitted UV filters which cosmetic products may contain

List of UV filters which cosmetic products may provisionally contain

tommee wrote:

You are a fool.

Because I understand what you do not? There are some 265,000 compounds in the database for GC/MS analysis comparison. Out of those you have a list of compounds which are not allowed in cosmetics under any circumstances, a list of compounds allowed with specific restrictions, and a list of provisionally allowed compounds. This does not cover all of the compounds which may be used since there are supposedly many compounds which should have no restrictions on use in cosmetics according to your references.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Ok this lists restricted substances, provisionally allowed substances, allowed preservatives, UV filters, and coloring agents. That leaves some 260,000 + known chemical compounds which could be used, but may require testing .... right?

List of substances which cosmetic products must not contain except subject to the restrictions and conditions laid down

List of substances provisionally allowed

List of colouring agents allowed for use in cosmetic products (1)

List of colouring agents provisionally allowed for use in cosmetic products

List of preservatives allowed

List of preservatives provisionally allowed

List of permitted UV filters which cosmetic products may contain

List of UV filters which cosmetic products may provisionally contain

tommee wrote:

You are a fool.

Because I understand what you do not? There are some 265,000 compounds in the database for GC/MS analysis comparison. Out of those you have a list of compounds which are not allowed in cosmetics under any circumstances, a list of compounds allowed with specific restrictions, and a list of provisionally allowed compounds. This does not cover all of the compounds which may be used since there are supposedly many compounds which should have no restrictions on use in cosmetics according to your references.

No because you don't understand the transition from one law to the other and quote directives that are out of date. Mixing it up because you think I'm an idiot.

Ok this lists restricted substances, provisionally allowed substances, allowed preservatives, UV filters, and coloring agents. That leaves some 260,000 + known chemical compounds which could be used, but may require testing .... right?

List of substances which cosmetic products must not contain except subject to the restrictions and conditions laid down

List of substances provisionally allowed

List of colouring agents allowed for use in cosmetic products (1)

List of colouring agents provisionally allowed for use in cosmetic products

List of preservatives allowed

List of preservatives provisionally allowed

List of permitted UV filters which cosmetic products may contain

List of UV filters which cosmetic products may provisionally contain

tommee wrote:

You are a fool.

Because I understand what you do not? There are some 265,000 compounds in the database for GC/MS analysis comparison. Out of those you have a list of compounds which are not allowed in cosmetics under any circumstances, a list of compounds allowed with specific restrictions, and a list of provisionally allowed compounds. This does not cover all of the compounds which may be used since there are supposedly many compounds which should have no restrictions on use in cosmetics according to your references.

tommee wrote:

No because you don't understand the transition from one law to the other and quote directives that are out of date. Mixing it up because you think I'm an idiot.

Come back when you have an idea.

What was quoted which is out of date? This was YOUR reference from which I pulled the information not mine.

I have also looked for a later change to the Dangerous Substances Directive you claim was made and can find none. Are you sure that was repleaced or are you merely making baselesss claims in the hopes none check up on it?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

The sixth amendment of 92/32/EEC? Since it is not part of the cosmetic requirements can you provide the reference to that 1 tonne requirement being changed perhaps? If not, I will understand that the assumptions are driving your views.

Production volumes of 1 to 10 tonne requires toxicology test for carcinogenic, mutagenic or reproductive effect, the test required a mutagenicity test in bacteria....

Article 8 section 4 gives the 1 tonne limit which triggers the requirements of Article 7 and which are specified in Annex VII.

I find no caveat related to or replacement of these requirements.

1992, moved on since.

Would help if you knew what you were talking about.

Where? According to the information I have found that was the seventh and last amendment to the 1967 base regulation. There seem to have been some annex additions, but I have found nothing that superceded the requirements of the articles referenced. Now if you can provide some link to such a change as has been asked prior, we can see what the current regulation is.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Article 8 section 4 gives the 1 tonne limit which triggers the requirements of Article 7 and which are specified in Annex VII.

I find no caveat related to or replacement of these requirements.

1992, moved on since.

Would help if you knew what you were talking about.

Where? According to the information I have found that was the seventh and last amendment to the 1967 base regulation. There seem to have been some annex additions, but I have found nothing that superceded the requirements of the articles referenced. Now if you can provide some link to such a change as has been asked prior, we can see what the current regulation is.

It is supposed to have done what? Indicate the EU regulations do not currently require toxicity testing for products/ingredients which may be used in cosmetics? Wrong, the general statute does, even for cosmetics as it is not prohibited from said requirement. The testing cannot be required to have been performed solely for cosmetic use within the EU, but the general statute requires everything reasonably suspected of harm to be properly tested, which would include toxicity testing since it is by definition reasonably suspected and is not prohibited by any other regulation. This may change in some fashion in the future, but presently it is the law.

Prove it.

Sure ... but why should it be necessary if you know it all and I do not?

As already mentioned, for repeated-dose toxicity testing, currently no validated orgenerally accepted alternative method is available for replacing animal testing. Therehave been some serious efforts in the domains of e.g. neurotoxicity and nephrotoxicity,but to date, no method or screening battery has been formally (pre-)validated[SCCNFP/0546/02].

In the notification process of dangerous substances, repeated dose toxicity studies arerequired when the substance under consideration is produced or imported in amountsexceeding 1 tonne/year [92/32/EEC].

In the case of the development of cosmetic ingredients which have specific biologicalproperties and which will come into contact with human skin for a long period of time,the SCCP is convinced that evaluation of the systemic risk is a key element inevaluating the safety of these new ingredients, irrespective of the tonnage-linked andpossibly limited requirements imposed by the Dangerous Substances Directive[67/548/EEC].

Therefore the SCCP considers that in certain cases the use of animal long-termexperiments to study one or more potential toxic effects remains a scientific necessity.It is self-evident that animal use should be limited to a minimum, but never at theexpense of consumer safety. The "7th Amendment" [2003/15/EC] to the CosmeticDirective 76/768/EEC allows up to 11 March 2013 for the development of validatedalternative tests for repeated exposure.

Quote:

The sixth amendment of 92/32/EEC? Since it is not part of the cosmetic requirements can you provide the reference to that 1 tonne requirement being changed perhaps? If not, I will understand that the assumptions are driving your views.

"Annex I of the Dangerous Substances Directive (DSD) ceased to have legal effect when CLP entered into force on 20 January 2009.

The list of harmonised substance classifications and labelling requirements were immediately incorporated into Annex VI of the CLP regulation. In Annex VI of REACH, the classification and labelling according to CLP is given in in Table 3.1 and that according to the DSD in Table 3.2. Amendments to this list are made through Adaptations to Technical Progress (ATP). "

The sixth amendment of 92/32/EEC? Since it is not part of the cosmetic requirements can you provide the reference to that 1 tonne requirement being changed perhaps? If not, I will understand that the assumptions are driving your views.

Production volumes of 1 to 10 tonne requires toxicology test for carcinogenic, mutagenic or reproductive effect, the test required a mutagenicity test in bacteria....

Any thing else you require?

Would help if you knew what you were talking about

Where is the change to OR instead of and for this requirement? Annex VII clearly states all are required in the report.

4.1 Acute toxicity - two routes of exposure4.3.1 Mutagencity - two tests one of which is bacteriolical for reverse mutation4.3.2 screening for toxicity related to reproduction5.1.1 Acute toxicity for fish5.1.2 Acute toxicity for daphnia

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

The sixth amendment of 92/32/EEC? Since it is not part of the cosmetic requirements can you provide the reference to that 1 tonne requirement being changed perhaps? If not, I will understand that the assumptions are driving your views.

Production volumes of 1 to 10 tonne requires toxicology test for carcinogenic, mutagenic or reproductive effect, the test required a mutagenicity test in bacteria....

Any thing else you require?

Would help if you knew what you were talking about

Where is the change to OR instead of and for this requirement? Annex VII clearly states all are required in the report.

4.1 Acute toxicity - two routes of exposure4.3.1 Mutagencity - two tests one of which is bacteriolical for reverse mutation4.3.2 screening for toxicity related to reproduction5.1.1 Acute toxicity for fish5.1.2 Acute toxicity for daphnia